Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Are Creationists Anti-Science?

Jason Spaceman Posts: 163 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,21:05    Quote Though I'm not sure it's accomplishing much, I've been having an ongoing discussion with several evolutionists over the past couple of days concerning my post yesterday on "Creationism and Peer Review." While my post yesterday deals primarily with the intellectual bigotry of the dominant scientific community (which believes religiously in evolution), and the circular logic evolutionists often use for rejecting creationist arguments(refuse to give peer review approval of a creationist theory that is sound within its own worldview, then say lack of peer-reviewed material is proof that creationist arguments lack quality), there are some other issues in the realm of science and scientific interpretation which are more at the center of the impasse in this debate. Today, Answers in Genesis features a piece on the common accusation that creationists reject science. This issue is at or close to the heart of the difference between creationists and evolutionists today. Contrary to the charge, creationists do not reject science, not in the least. Instead, they reject naturalism, which is a philosophy that has incorrectly become synonymous with "science" in modern language. Read it here.

J. O'Donnell Posts: 98 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,21:15    Anyone who spreads ignorance about basic scientific methods and twists data to the extent that creationists do is definitely 'anti-science'. It also makes them highly dishonest, like the incredibly dishonest AiG article mangling a research paper about the burial of an ichyosaurus fossil. Also, it's not so much that creationist papers are rejected from Journals as they never bother submitting anything (not that many of their major errors would pass peer reviews from actual experts in the relevant field), as admitted on the stand in the Edwards v. Aguillard trial. If there is one thing creationists are good at, aside from spreading a distinct anti-science and anti-reason endeavor, it's losing court cases dramatically where they can present their best case. It's funny how they always demand equal time, equal say and when they finally get the chance to, they always suffer a massive and humiliating loss. Possibly because their logic, arguments and what they call 'science' never stands up to scrutiny by people who know what they are talking about. -------------- My blog: Animacules

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,21:17    Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Feb. 04 2008,21:05)     Quote Contrary to the charge, creationists do not reject science, not in the least. Instead, they reject naturalism, which is a philosophy that has incorrectly become synonymous with "science" in modern language. It certainly is incorrect. But I don't think it is the fault of scientists when creationists are the ones who seem incapable of differentiating between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. Maybe if you guys can get that straight, things will get better. Unless, of course, you can tell us how to detect (reliably and reproducibly) things that are supernatural. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,21:32    Well, I've given up on him. I'm not the one who said "you can't believe in both evolution and God." He did. (Anyway I don't "believe in" evolution.) I didn't care who believed in God before ID raised its snout. It's creationism in new packaging that I can't stand. Of course creationists are anti-science. They challenge the very definition of science. To them, science is a rubber stamp of "truth" when in facts it's always a provisional truth. Creationists don't get that. They want simple answers, absolutes. Science is not absolutist (of course it's "flawed!"). They want a short cut. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Jason Spaceman Posts: 163 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,21:36    It's ironic that he brings up AiG, since their statement of faith reads, in part: Quote No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. So in that sense creationists are anti-science, when it conflicts with their literalist reading of the Bible.

Richard Simons Posts: 425 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 04 2008,23:27    I just sent something there. From memory (I stupidly deleted it before copying it) it was Quote Not all scientists take the attitude that the universe came about through natural processes with no supernatural influence or intervention. However, all scientists do take the attitude that it is not possible to scientifically investigate supernatural causes. If you disagree with this, please describe an experiment that could be done or data that could be collected that would investigate a possible supernatural cause (remember, to be science there must be the possibility of an answer showing that there is no supernatural cause). -------------- All sweeping statements are wrong.

pwe Posts: 46 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,04:23    Quote (Jason Spaceman @ Feb. 04 2008,21:05) Quote ... Today, Answers in Genesis features a piece on the common accusation that creationists reject science. ... It's just that the creationist definition of 'science' isn't quite the same as the one used by scientists. According to the Bible astrologers and necromancers should be killed (why is it that an all-loving god is so happy abound having people killed?), but maybe astrologers and necromancers just have their own definition of science? - pwe

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,11:23    "Contrary to the charge, creationists do not reject science, not in the least. Instead, they reject naturalism, which is a philosophy that has incorrectly become synonymous with "science" in modern language." Really???...You all believe in Science....Two words: Radiometric Dating -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,11:31    Quote (Steverino @ Feb. 05 2008,11:23) Radiometric Dating www.Chernobylsweethearts.com -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Peter Henderson Posts: 298 Joined: Aug. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,12:08    AiG have been going on at this over the last few days: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/anti-science http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....science Quote Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible). Quote Take a look at the difference between this type of science, called “operational” science, and its counterpart, “origins” science, which requires extrapolation beyond the presently available data—in other words, faith in a story about the unobserved past. I often wonder what creationists think of criminal juries since none of the jury were there to witness the actual crime. All they have is evidence to which they draw certain conclusions. Surely science is a lot like this. Having worked in the science (chemistry) end of things for nearly thirty years I can assure creationists that in science we do often use extrapolation to reach certain results. While origins science may not be repeatable we do have clues that have been left behind. We can also observe processes that are going on in the present which can give us a clue to how things were in the past. YECism destroys science in my opinion. Why bother when all the answers are already there.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,12:56    Is creationism anti-science? Yes. And in exactly the same manner, and for the exact same reasons, that the ideals of the British Nationalist Party are racist. It's a political/denialist disease. The symptoms are identical, the only difference is the individual smell of the pus being exuded from the boils. Just like it's important for the BNP to pretend not to be racist in public, it's important for creationists to pretend not to be anti-science. They want all of the legitimacy with none of the work. They want the appearance of a factual basis for their views whether those views are factually based or not. The image of science is what they envy, just like racists want the image of being anti-bigot/non-bigot. They envy the appearance and desire the status they percieve it grants. They think that the appearance is what matters. They're wrong. Take FTK as a classic example in this instance. The science is utterly irrelevant to her (whatever she may protest to the contrary), it's all about how it appears. Whatever appears to support her faith is good, whatever she has been conned into believing contradicts her faith is bad. The appearance is all that matters. Denialists of all stripes the world over are the same. All they crave is the legitimacy such an appearance grants them, it gets them debates, it gets them a platform, it gets them respect and a chance to have their views enshrined in law without all that tedious messing about testing them against reality. It is in fact the most violent, subversive prostitution of the democratic and rational processes imaginable. And we all form a part of the process that aids them, and sadly 'twill ever be thus. Anti-Enlightenment, anti-reason is like a hydra, many heads but all stem from one body. It doesn't take much effort to see they are the same creature. Louis -------------- Bye.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:12    Quote the circular logic evolutionists often use for rejecting creationist arguments(refuse to give peer review approval of a creationist theory that is sound within its own worldview, then say lack of peer-reviewed material is proof that creationist arguments lack quality) So how would he or AIG prove, using arithmetic, that 1 + 1 = 2? -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:29    What do we mean by "anti-science"?  Creationists are anti-science in two senses.  First, they are opposed to standard-issue science.  Second, they want science replaced with their own caricature -- their own anti-science -- which is a crudely distorted funhouse-mirror image of science.   This is the difference between pseudoscience and antiscience. A pseudoscience such as astrology doesn't want to displace astronomy.  But an antiscience like creationism wants to displace biology. Antiscience wants the cultural authority of science without the science itself. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

J. O'Donnell Posts: 98 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,16:50    Did anyone read the 'technical' paper from the new AiG journal on microbiology? It's so awful, I almost wept. [I'm a microbiologist myself, so it made things all the worse]. -------------- My blog: Animacules

guthrie Posts: 696 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:02    I take it a "Journal of Creationism rebuttals" would be out of the question? It would contain articles crushing things like the AiG bible comparison articles. Edited to add- by "Bible comparison articles" I mean the "Peer reviewed science" whereby AiG compare actual science to the bible and dump what they think doesn't fit.  Then they publish it in their journal.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:03    Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Feb. 05 2008,15:50) Did anyone read the 'technical' paper from the new AiG journal on microbiology? It's so awful, I almost wept. [I'm a microbiologist myself, so it made things all the worse]. Cheer up. I can sum this all up in one word. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4966 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:04    Quote (guthrie @ Feb. 05 2008,17:02) I take it a "Journal of Creationism rebuttals" would be out of the question? It would contain articles crushing things like the AiG bible comparison articles. Hmmm. Actually, I think I recall seeing a CMS package whose purpose was precisely handling an online journal. Give me until a bit into March, and I think I can check that out for installing on the server. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 05 2008,17:07    Louis, Very well put. Wish I'd said that. ("You will, Oscar, you will...") [/jealousy] -------------- "People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011 JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard